KALPESH K SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3960/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8269 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 3960/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995 - 96 & ITA NO. 3961/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1996 - 97 KALPESH K. SHAH SHANTI VILLA, NR. ST. LAWRENC E SCHOOL, DEVIDAS LANE, BORIVAL I (W), MUMBAI - 400103 VS. ITO - 25(2)(1), PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BKC MUMBAI - 400051. PAN NO. AACPS4907Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MR. RAJESH KUMAR YADAV , DR DATE OF HEARING : 09/11 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 35, MUMBAI AND ARISE OUT OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (THE ACT). SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISP OSE THEM OFF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. WE FIND THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 01.09.2015, 11.02 .2016, 12.07.2017 AND 09.11.2017 . IT IS FOUND THAT NEITHER THE KALPESH K. SHAH ITA NO. 3960 & 3961/MUM/2013 2 ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON THE A BOVE DATES. 3. AT THE THRESHOLD, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR. WE FIND THAT PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSID ERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/11/2017. SD / - SD/ - (MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 24/11/2017 RAHUL SHARMA, SR. P.S. KALPESH K. SHAH ITA NO. 3960 & 3961/MUM/2013 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI